Rent for single family properties is higher than the mortgage of that same property. In theory. So ideally no single family property should be rented as its purely a parasite relationship. Again, in theory.
The problem is that isn't always true in practice with today's market and rules. because if the previous owner has had their mortgage long enough, then it could be quite a lot less than a new mortgage. That makes a situation where rent is higher than their old mortgage (providing landlord profit), but cheaper than a new mortgage (providing a valid choice to a renter).
But many of us argue that the current situation is unnecessary and drives up overall market costs. Even when done by just small landlords, it all adds up because the system allows it to.
So its not so much telling you what to rent and what not to rent. its more that in a better system, you wouldnt ever choose to rent that way. Mortgages on small or attached single family homes would just be cheaper and affordable like they were in the past. And if you needed even less costs, renting would be the option in actual properties designed for it. Whether that is sardine packed 600 sqft, or not.
You're just trolling at this point but hey i'll do what you can't and justify my own words.
"monopoly" in some peoples' opinions (not mine but im open to their dominance being a bad thing anyway), 30% cut (still an industry standard but could and should be lower despite the value it provides), drm (optional but fuck drm in any form), gambling (no parenthesis needed i hope), returns and support itself being rather limited. Im sure we can come up with more.
None of those are enshittification.